The latter led to us asking GE some follow-up questions over Twitter to try to get to the truth, which GE appeared to be doing everything possible to avoid sharing. The deafening silences in that exchange provided a case-study in attempted-PR-damage-control-via-Twitter, which we wrote about here.

After reading GE's response, we thought we had finally discovered the truth: The New York Times was full of crap.

But then, this morning, we got a note from the New York Times standing behind every detail of its story and saying that it was GE that was full of crap.

To back up this assertion, the New York Times sent us an Agence France-Presse story in which the same GE spokesman who had written the comment on our site had said something that appeared to directly contradict what she had told us. The second statement from the GE spokesperson, moreover, appeared to partially corroborate the New York Times's assertion about GE's zero tax bill.

Well, eight hours later, we have now wasted another half day trying to get the truth out of GE. Although we've made some more progress, we're not quite there yet. But GE has now decided to cut its losses and stop talking to us, so we've gotten as far as we're going to get.

So we hereby invite any other journalists--maybe even the ones at the New York Times--to pick up where we've left off and nail down the truth.

But before we do that, we'll also share the full story of what we know so far.

NYT: "[GE's] American tax bill? None."

That's the quote from last week's New York Times story about the heroic and successful lengths GE goes to to pay as little taxes as possible. The NYT observed that GE made $12 billion of net profit, including $5 billion in the US, and paid very little tax--including "none" in the US.

Well, as GE quickly pointed out, that statement was, at best, highly misleading, and, taken literally, wrong. GE paid tons of "American" taxes last year, including state taxes, local taxes, and payroll taxes.

The New York Times eventually defended itself by saying that what it meant was US federal corporate income taxes, not other forms of American taxes. But last night, on our site, GE spokesperson Anne Eisele said that even when the phrase "American taxes" is limited to US federal corporate income taxes, the statement is still a bunch of crap.

Eisele also explained that these payments were pre-payments on a presumed 2010 tax liability--similar to the withholdings that you and I get taken out of every paycheck that we may get refunded to us when we file our taxes in April. Importantly, Eisele also said that, once GE's final 2010 tax bill is determined, which Eisele says will happen this fall, GE expects to have a "positive tax liability" for 2010. Meaning that, contrary to the NYT's assertion, GE will owe tax for the year.

NYT's KELLER: "We believe in verification rather than assertion"

Now, if that's correct, the New York Times's statement that GE's American tax bill was "none" is flat-out wrong no matter how you choose to limit or interpret it.

Third, because GE's American tax bill, which the NYT specifically cited, hasn't even been computed yet.

And with that, we went to bed, hoping that we had finally gotten the truth.

But then we woke up this morning to get a statement from the New York Times in which the NYT stood by its story and asked that we retract our conclusion that its statement about GE's taxes was "flat-out wrong." We shared what we had learned from GE with the New York Times. This prompted the New York Times to send us this AFP article, in which the same GE spokesperson, Anne Eisele, said something that appeared to directly contradict what she had just told us:

"GE did not pay US federal taxes last year because we did not owe any."

Well, that statement appeared to undermine everything Eisele had just told us about GE having paid federal income taxes AND corroborate the NYT's assertion that GE's federal tax bill was "none."

So, naturally, we sent the article to Eisele, asking for an explanation.

After a couple of flustered emails that we would characterize as "Oh. Look at that. Oops. Guess I'll have to get back to you," Eisele went silent for a while. Then, eventually, she returned with an answer that she said proved that BOTH things she had said were correct (see emails below).

Well, we spent a decade on Wall Street analyzing financial statements and taxes and so forth, but we still couldn't understand what Eisele was trying to say in her final clarification -- other than to make clear her belief that she hadn't misled us earlier when she had told us GE had paid federal taxes in 2010.

So we asked Eisele to clarify her answer.

Eisele, finally getting short with us, said she had already answered our question and that, if we wanted more information, she would be happy to put us in touch with GE's tax department.

And we thought about wasting even more hours going back and forth with GE's tax department and instead just emailed Eisele back and observed that we were asking very simple questions and this just wasn't that complicated. And, in that same email, we also mentioned to Eisele that there was unfortunately another topic we needed to ask her about, which was GE's assertion that GE's sponsorship of a community project in Harlem that GE CEO Jeff Immelt and allegedly corrupt New York Congressman Charlie Rangel had proudly announced together had had nothing to do with Rangel's suddenly dropping his opposition to an important GE tax break after meeting with the head of GE's tax team.

(Because we found that last assertion hard to believe)

Well, that was enough for Eisele.

Eisele said that if we didn't care enough about the truth to call her and talk to her tax people, she was "done." (She ignored the Rangel question).

Well, we did care about the truth (and the Rangel question), so we called.

That was several hours ago. Eisele hasn't returned our call.

CONCLUSION

The New York Times is full of crap. Although we haven't yet determined for certain that GE's US federal income tax bill will be more than zero (neither has GE), the NYT's statement that GE's "American" tax bill in 2010 was "none" is, at best, highly misleading. GE paid loads of American taxes in 2010, even before you get to the federal income tax question. A reasonable New York Times reader would have no idea that the phrase "American tax bill" was supposed to mean only "federal income taxes" and this reader would therefore be surprised to learn that GE actually paid lots of local, state, and payroll taxes. We assume the New York Times aspires to be more accurate than "highly misleading," so we think the paper should issue a correction.

GE is full of crap. As we progressed in our interminable dealings with GE, it became clear that GE's assertion that it "paid federal income taxes" in 2010 was, at best, spin (if not a complete fabrication). It is absurd to think that normal humans could understand how to reconcile the statements, "GE did not pay any federal taxes because it didn't owe any" and "GE paid federal taxes [and will owe some]." These statements appear to completely contradict each other. And it's also insulting that GE thinks (or hopes) that people are so dense that GE can get away with saying "we paid taxes" when what they mean is "we made payments that will eventually be returned to us once we file our tax returns." This is the worst kind of corporate spin, and GE, of all companies, should be above it.

The New York Times readers deserve clear, accurate statements from the paper, especially if editor Bill Keller is going to trumpet the company's commitment to "verification rather than assertion."

Similarly, the public deserves simple, clear answers about GE's business from GE's PR team, not spin. GE is one of the most important and powerful companies in the world. It if wants to live up to its reputation for fairness, quality, and leadership, it should make certain that its vast communications and legal resources are used to further those goals--not to waste people's time and obscure truths that some Americans may find unpleasant.